A UBI would cause replacement of other social programs due to high costs.

Feminist notes of caution Others have been more cautious about the implications of UBI for gender equality. The potentially high costs could preclude public investments in other areas, including care services. One estimation of the costs of UBI paid at 100 per cent of the national poverty line to every adult and child for a sample of 130 countries found that this basic level would require a significant fiscal outlay of 20 to 35 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) for most world regions, making this a very difficult proposition for most countries and out of reach for those that are highly indebted.24 The question of how the substantial level of resources necessary for UBI set at this level could be mobilized raises important questions about sustainability and equity, with implications for gender equality. For UBI to be within reach for highly-indebted countries, debt relief would be an essential first step. In the context of fiscal tightening and austerity, there are fears that UBI is being promoted to replace social security—which tends to provide higher levels of protection and promotes social solidarity—with a minimal social safety net plus individual private insurance schemes for those who can afford them. This runs the risk of exacerbating inequalities given that, in determining premiums and entitlements, private insurance schemes tend to discriminate by sex, age, pre-existing conditions that are affected by structural determinants of health, and other factors, rather than pooling risks and resources as is the case in solidarity-based social insurance schemes.25 A flat-rate UBI for all would also fail to address specific gendered risks throughout life, such as childbirth, unemployment and old age, and may also erode existing provisions for groups such as women with disabilities or single mothers.

Conservatives would backlash at a UBI – they oppose redistribution of their wealth.

Streithorst, 2015 – Evonomics Journalist [Tom, “How Basic Income Solves Capitalism’s Fundamental Problem”, Evonomics, December 20, 2015, http://evonomics.com/how-universal-basic-income-solves/. TA]

The third problem is perhaps the most central. By stimulating the economy and pushing it towards its production possibilities frontier, the Basic Income Guarantee will be growth enhancing, but it is undeniable that it will also be redistributive. The pie will be larger, but it will be sliced differently. For the past 30 years, we have stimulated the economy by shovelling money towards rich people. A Basic Income Guarantee shovels money towards poor people. And for many in the top 1%, that is anathema.∂ Conservatives generally favour tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy. Although they don’t like to admit it, this is textbook Keynesianism. As long as the government does not cut spending, more money in consumers’ pockets will inevitably increase demand. Unfortunately, tax cuts generally favour the richest among us, and they, unlike the poor, are liable to save rather than spend their windfall. Stimulating savings is a waste of a tax cut. Today, we have an over-abundance of saving and a shortfall of investment and consumption. A Basic Income Guarantee can be thought of as a tax cut targeted to those most likely to spend it, which is what the economy needs. The Basic Income Guarantee solves the problem of demand, stimulates the economy, increases corporate profits, gives workers more freedom, and provides a safety net to the most vulnerable. It is economically sound and politically savvy. But the very rich don’t fear unemployment, they fear redistribution and they will be the most significant force against the implementation of the Basic Income Guarantee.